web
counter
 

The 26 Contemporary Directors With the Lowest Average Box-Office Gross

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists | Comments (16)



2004_eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind_005.jpg

Having explored over the last two days both the Box Office Sweet Spot and the directors with the highest average box-office over the course of their careers, I can’t quite let it go until I round up the directors with the lowest box-office average, too (since 1980). Again, to be included on the list, the director must have made at least four films, and I also excluded those directors who didn’t have at least four movies in the English language (just because a director like Tom Twyker or Hayao Miyazaki may not be commercially successful in America doesn’t mean he hasn’t been incredibly successful overseas).

I think the trend that you’re most likely to pick up on from this list is that you don’t have to make scads of money at the box office to be considered a successful or very well-respected director. Many of the directors on this list have Oscars, many others have been very prolific during the course of their careers, and most have made some very good films. Their movies just happen to serve a particular indie niche, but as long as they can continue to make their movies within a particular budget, many of them may still continue to make movies.

In fact, with only a couple of exceptions — Uwe Boll, Richard Loncraine — most of the people on this list have never striven for major commercial success. They seem content making small films for small audiences. What’s more impressive, especially for the prolific ones, is that many of them not only have to contend with directing a film (and writing it, as many on this list are writer/directors) but also financing them.

Nevertheless, it is somewhat disappointing that many of these directors have not found the broader success they deserve.

1. Errol Morris (The Thin Blue Line, Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control) — $1.6 million average

2. Adam Rifkin (The Chase, Detroit Rock City) — $2.4 million average

3. Noah Baumbach (Kicking and Screaming, The Squid and the Whale) — $2.9 million average

4. Stanley Tucci (Big Night, The Imposters) — $3.7 million average

5. Mike Leigh (Happy-Go-Lucky, Secrets and Lies) — $3.8 million average

6. Paul Schrader (American Gigolo, Affliction) — $4.6 million average

7. Uwe Boll (Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark) — $5.7 million average

8. David Mamet (House of Games, Heist) — $6.0 million average

9. James Ivory (The Remains of the Day, Howard’s End) — $7.4 million average

10. Stephan Elliot (The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, Easy Virtue) — $7.6 million average

11. Jane Campion (Bright Star, Holy Smoke) — $8.1 million average

12. George Gallo (Middle Men, Double Take) — $8.1 million average

13. James Gray (We Own the Night, Two Lovers) — $8.4 million average

14. John Dahl (Unforgettable, Rounders) — $8.6 million average

15. Albert Brooks (Mother, The Muse) — $8.8 million average

16. Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Be Kind, Rewind) — $9.0 million average

17. Christopher Guest (A Mighty Wind, Best in Show)— $9.1 million average

18. Gillian Armstrong (Little Women, Oscar and Lucinda) — $9.7 million average

19. Rod Lurie (The Contender, Resurrecting the Champ) — $9.9 million average

20. Darren Aronovsky (Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler) — $10.8 million average

21. Richard Linklater (Dazed and Confused, Before Sunrise) — $12.1 million average

22. Martha Coolidge (Real Genius, Valley Girl) — $12.3 million average

23. Mike Binder (Reign Over Me, The Upside of Anger) — $12.4 million average

24. Woody Allen (Annie Hall, Vicky Cristina Barcelona ) — $12.6 million average

25. Richard Loncraine (Firewall, Wimbledon) — $13.1 million average

26. Robert Altman (Nashville, Gosford Park) — $13.9 million million average









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



The Greatest Review | You Will Weep, You Emotionally Vulnerable Little Twit | Pajiba Love 14/07/10









Comments

Hmm... I've noticed a suspicious lack of Quentin Tarantino on these lists. Where does he fall in these three categories?

Also, out of all three lists, this one probably contains the most number of my favorite directors. Though, The Sweet Spot is a close second. I'd wager most people would feel the same, with the big box office successees admired but not, in general, as beloved. Which, I think, just goes to show that personal projects will always resonate more than spectacles. Jurassic Park being the exception. Of course.

Posted by: RobP at July 14, 2010 11:44 AM

Interesting lists. Inspired me to do one myself, but I'm not giving the topic away until I'm done - don't want anyone to, er, usurp it.

But just to be clear - these are the absolute lowest averaging directors of the last 30 years? Are there no caveats? Surely there have to be directors with a couple of big bombs that would put them below 1 on the list. Or do they have to have directed a certain amount of films (e.g. more than 4, like in the last list).

Sorry if I'm missing something totally obvious, it's just that, in the context of "least financially successful filmmakers," the names on the list surprise me.

Posted by: dsbs at July 14, 2010 11:48 AM

"My motherfucker is so cool, when he goes to bed, sheep count him".

Heist is a great flick. you might call it an under appreciated gem.

Posted by: badalamenti at July 14, 2010 11:53 AM

Uwe Boll? Have you seen his POS films??

Posted by: Tom at July 14, 2010 11:55 AM

Are these numbers adjusted for inflation? I'm wondering if some of the directors that have been around for a long time have skewed averages.

Posted by: maceo at July 14, 2010 11:59 AM

dsbs,
the thing about the "big bombs" is that usually they still gross a fair amount of money. They're bombs because they frequently cost much more than they gross. If one could figure out the true net income of films, I imagine that would be a completely different set of names, and would include the ones you're thinking of.

Posted by: Pat C at July 14, 2010 12:05 PM

I know it's probably a good thing in this case but seeing Michel Gondry, Woody Allen, and Richard Linklater lower on a list than Uwe Boll (or on a list with him at all) is supremely painful. Oh well. At least the new Ed Wood is as much a failure at the box office as we all know he should be.

Posted by: ChristianH at July 14, 2010 12:22 PM

This list supports my thesis that art alienates as many (or more) people than it pleases.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at July 14, 2010 12:29 PM

Guess that makes me Mr. Prententious -- I've seen at least one movie by every director on that list, except Boll....

Posted by: sansho1 at July 14, 2010 1:14 PM

Thanks, Pat C. I actually think there was an SRL like that a couple of weeks ago - that's probably where my mind went when I saw the title.

Posted by: dsbs at July 14, 2010 1:19 PM

Is this just box office success? Because I'm pretty sure if you add in rentals and TV re-showings James Ivory has a way higher average than you put here based on rentals of "A Room With a View" alone.

Posted by: PaddyDog at July 14, 2010 1:32 PM

I am ashamed to say that I have not even heard of the majority of those movies.

Posted by: ERM at July 14, 2010 1:45 PM

"Nevertheless, it is somewhat disappointing that many of these directors have not found the broader success they deserve."

Stanley Tucci can bite me...er, I mean, punch me in the boob.

Posted by: Hayden Tompkins at July 14, 2010 1:55 PM

Does the absence of John Waters from this list indicate that his pictures are more profitable than Woody Allen's?

Posted by: Raleigh at July 15, 2010 9:33 AM

I thought it was going to be some boring old post, but it really compensated for my time. I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful.I think you have done an excellent job with your blog. I will return in the near future.I had bookmark it :)

Posted by: Cheap fashion dresses at January 5, 2011 9:41 PM

They're bombs because they frequently cost much more than they gross. If one could figure out the true net income of films, I imagine that would be a completely different set of names, and would include the ones you're thinking of.

Posted by: bupop at February 10, 2011 9:13 PM